Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Zhang, Dengshen; Mao, Xin; Liu, Daxing; Zhang, Jian; Luo, Gang; Luo, Liangliang

doi:10.1002/clc.23454

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration of intensive care unit stay was also shorter in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group. These merits of TAVR have already been discussed in previous studies [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery

Saito

Sairenchi

Hirota

et al. 2022

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study compared the clinical outcomes of transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacements, focusing on postoperative valvular performance assessed by echocardiography. Method and Results A total of 425 patients who underwent TAVR (230 patients) or SAVR (195 patients) were included. Postoperative effective orifice area index (EOAI) was higher in the TAVR group (1.27 ± 0.35 cm2/m2) than in the SAVR group (1.06 ± 0.27 cm2/m2, p < 0.001), and patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was more frequent in the SAVR group (22.6%) than in the TAVR group (8.7%, p < 0.001). Mild or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) was more frequent in the TAVR group (21.3%) than in the SAVR group (0%, p < 0.001). Moreover, there was no difference in freedom from all-cause death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the groups. Patients with moderate or greater PPM (EOAI < 0.85 cm2/m2) had lower freedom from composite events than those without this PPM criterion (p = 0.008). Patients with mild or greater PVL also had lower freedom from composite events than those without this PVL criterion (p = 0.017). Conclusions Postoperative valvular performance of TAVR was superior to that of SAVR in terms of EOAI. This merit was counterbalanced by the significantly lower rates of PVL in patients who underwent SAVR. The overall clinical outcomes were similar between the study groups.

show abstract

“…The duration of intensive care unit stay was also shorter in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group. These merits of TAVR have already been discussed in previous studies [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery

Saito

Sairenchi

Hirota

et al. 2022

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 They demonstrate that in the RCT meta-analysis, although TAVR compared with SAVR was associated with a lower risk of operative mortality (0.66% vs 1.5%;individualstudiesdidnotshowdifference),therewasno difference in 1-year all-cause mortality in low-surgical risk patients.Thisfindingisconsistentwithotherrecentmeta-analyses of the data. [7][8][9] The low-risk cohort also had lower perioperative stroke with TAVR than SAVR (0.4% vs 1.4%) but individual RCTs for either low-or intermediate-risk patients have not shown significantdifferenceon1-yearto2-yearfollow-up. 2,4,10 Despite these recent trials of low-to intermediate-surgical risk patients, the decision to undertake TAVR or SAVR is a nuanced one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This finding is consistent with other recent meta-analyses of the data. 7 -9 The low-risk cohort also had lower perioperative stroke with TAVR than SAVR (0.4% vs 1.4%) but individual RCTs for either low- or intermediate-risk patients have not shown significant difference on 1-year to 2-year follow-up. 2,4,10…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

TAVR or SAVR: Unfinished Business

Resar

2021

Innovations�(Phila)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…59,60 In addition to the complication of paravalvular leak, transcatheter aortic valves frequently require pacemaker implantation, but have a decreased risk for stroke when compared to surgical aortic valve replacement. 61,62 The CHOICE trial examined the differences in clinical outcomes after 5 years between Nitinol self-expanding valves and balloon-expanding valves. They noted no difference in all-cause mortality or paravalvular leak.…”

Section: Shape Memory Alloys In Transcatheter Valvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart materials in cardiovascular implants: Shape memory alloys and shape memory polymers

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart materials have intrinsic properties that change in a controlled fashion in response to external stimuli. Currently, the only smart materials with a significant clinical impact in cardiovascular implant design are shape memory alloys, particularly Nitinol. Recent prodigious progress in material science has resulted in the development of sophisticated shape memory polymers. In this article, we have reviewed the literature and outline the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of shape memory alloys and shape memory polymers which are relevant to clinical cardiovascular applications, and describe the potential of these smart materials for applications in coronary stents and transcatheter valves.

show abstract

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Cited by 8 publications

References 49 publications

Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery

Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery

TAVR or SAVR: Unfinished Business

Smart materials in cardiovascular implants: Shape memory alloys and shape memory polymers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About